MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1212401796 · doi:10.1108/14668203200500018

Elder Abuse: Selected Papers from the Prague World Congress on Family Violence

2005· article· en· W1212401796 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Adult Protection · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElder abuseCriminologyDomestic violencePolitical scienceGerontologyPsychologyMedicineMedical emergencySuicide preventionPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

* Foreword * Introduction * Grandparents Raising Grandchildren: The Risks of Caregiving (Patricia Brownell, Jacqueline Berman, Antoinette Nelson, and Rosemary Colon Fofana) * The Elder Abuse of Custodial Grandparents: A Hidden Phenomenon (Jordan I. Kosberg and Gordon MacNeil) * Combating Elder Financial Abuse--A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to a Growing Problem (Betty Malks, Jamie Buckmaster, and Laura Cunningham) * Study of Elder Abuse Within Diverse Cultures (Jordan I. Kosberg, Ariela Lowenstein, Juanita L. Garcia, and Simon Biggs) * A National Look at Elder Abuse Multidisciplinary Teams (Pamela B. Teaster, Lisa Nerenberg, and Kim L. Stansbury) * A Forensic Medical Examination Form for Improved Documentation and Prosecution of Elder Abuse (Diana Koin) * Elder Abuse Awareness in Faith Communities: Findings from a Canadian Pilot Study (Elizabeth Podnieks and Sue Wilson) * An Exploratory Study of Responses in Elder Abuse in Faith Communities (Elizabeth Podnieks and Sue Wilson) * Older Women, Domestic Violence, and Elder Abuse: A Review of Commonalities, Differences and Shared Approaches (Bridget Penhale) * Elder Abuse Risk Indicators and Screening Questions: Results from a Literature Search and a Panel of Experts from Developed and Developing Countries (Christen L. Erlingsson, Sharon L. Carlson, and Britt-Inger Saveman) * Index * Reference Notes Included

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Adult ProtectionSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207